Search

Background: Progressive loss of standing balance is a feature of Friedreich's ataxia (FRDA). Objectives: This study aimed to identify standing balance conditions and digital postural sway measures that best discriminate between FRDA and healthy controls (HC). We assessed test–retest reliability and correlations between sway measures and clinical scores. Methods: Twenty‐eight subjects with FRDA and 20 HC completed six standing conditions: feet apart, feet together, and feet tandem, both with eyes opened (EO) and eyes closed. Sway was measured using a wearable sensor on the lumbar spine for 30 seconds. Test completion rate, test–retest reliability with intraclass correlation coefficients, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) for each measure were compared to identify distinguishable FRDA sway characteristics from HC. Pearson correlations were used to evaluate the relationships between discriminative measures and clinical scores. Results: Three of the six standing conditions had completion rates over 70%. Of these three conditions, natural stance and feet together with EO showed the greatest completion rates. All six of the sway measures' mean values were significantly different between FRDA and HC. Four of these six measures discriminated between groups with >0.9 AUC in all three conditions. The Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale Upright Stability and Total scores correlated with sway measures with P‐values <0.05 and r‐values (0.63–0.86) and (0.65–0.81), respectively. Conclusion: Digital postural sway measures using wearable sensors are discriminative and reliable for assessing standing balance in individuals with FRDA. Natural stance and feet together stance with EO conditions suggest use in clinical trials for FRDA. © 2024 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maintaining balance is crucial for independence and quality of life. Loss of balance is a hallmark of spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA). Objective: The aim of this study was to identify which standing balance conditions and digital measures of body sway were most discriminative, reliable, and valid for quantifying balance in SCA. Methods: Fifty-three people with SCA (13 SCA1, 13 SCA2, 14 SCA3, and 13 SCA6) and Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) scores 9.28 ( 4.36 and 31 healthy controls were recruited. Subjects stood in six test conditions (natural stance, feet together and tandem, each with eyes open [EO] and eyes closed [EC]) with an inertial sensor on their lower back for 30 seconds (2). We compared test completion rate, test–retest reliability, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for seven digital sway measures. Pearson’s correlations related sway with the SARA and the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia (PROM ataxia). Results: Most individuals with SCA (85%–100%) could stand for 30 seconds with natural stance EO or EC, and with feet together EO. The most discriminative digital sway measures (path length, range, area, and root mean square) from the two most reliable and discriminative conditions (natural stance EC and feet together EO) showed intraclass correlation coefficients from 0.70 to 0.91 and AUCs from 0.83 to 0.93. Correlations of sway with SARA were significant (maximum r = 0.65 and 0.73). Correlations with PROM ataxia were mild to moderate (maximum r = 0.56 and 0.34). Conclusion: Inertial sensor measures of extent of postural sway in conditions of natural stance EC and feet together stance EO were discriminative, reliable, and valid for monitoring SCA. © 2024 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physical activity and sleep monitoring in daily life provide vital information to track health status and physical fitness. The aim of this study was to establish concurrent validity for the new Opal Actigraphy solution in relation to the widely used ActiGraph GT9X for measuring physical activity from accelerometry epic counts (sedentary to vigorous levels) and sleep periods in daily life. Twenty participants (age 56 + 22 years) wore two wearable devices on each wrist for 7 days and nights, recording 3-D accelerations at 30 Hz. Bland–Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) assessed validity (agreement) and test–retest reliability between ActiGraph and Opal Actigraphy sleep durations and activity levels, as well as between the two different versions of the ActiGraph. ICCs showed excellent reliability for physical activity measures and moderate-to-excellent reliability for sleep measures between Opal versus Actigraph GT9X and between GT3X versus GT9X. Bland–Altman plots and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) also show a comparable performance (within 10%) between Opal and ActiGraph and between the two ActiGraph monitors across activity and sleep measures. In conclusion, physical activity and sleep measures using Opal Actigraphy demonstrate performance comparable to that of ActiGraph, supporting concurrent validation. Opal Actigraphy can be used to quantify activity and monitor sleep patterns in research and clinical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quantitative assessment of severity of ataxia‐specific gait impairments from wearable technology could provide sensitive performance outcome measures with high face validity to power clinical trials. Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify a set of gait measures from body‐worn inertial sensors that best discriminate between people with prodromal or manifest spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) and age‐matched, healthy control subjects (HC) and determine how these measures relate to disease severity. Methods: One hundred and sixty‐three people with SCA (subtypes 1, 2, 3, and 6), 42 people with prodromal SCA, and 96 HC wore 6 inertial sensors while performing a natural pace, 2‐minute walk. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were compared for 25 gait measures, including standard deviations as variability, to discriminate between ataxic and normal gait. Pearson's correlation coefficient assessed the relationships between the gait measures and severity of ataxia. Results: Increased gait variability was the most discriminative gait feature of SCA; toe‐out angle variability (AUC = 0.936; sensitivity = 0.871; specificity = 0.896) and double‐support time variability (AUC = 0.932; sensitivity = 0.834; specificity = 0.865) were the most sensitive and specific measures. These variability measures were also significantly correlated with the scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) and disease duration. The same gait measures discriminated gait of people with prodromal SCA from the gait of HC (AUC = 0.610, and 0.670, respectively). Conclusions: Wearable inertial sensors provide sensitive and specific measures of excessive gait variability in both manifest and prodromal SCAs that are reliable and related to the severity of the disease, suggesting they may be useful as clinical trial performance outcome measures. © 2021 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is currently no consensus about standardized gait bout definitions when passively monitoring walking during normal daily life activities. It is also not known how different definitions of a gait bout in daily life monitoring affects the ability to distinguish pathological gait quality. Specifically, how many seconds of a pause with no walking indicates an end to one gait bout and the start of another bout? In this study, we investigated the effect of 3 gait bout definitions on the discriminative ability to distinguish quality of walking in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) from healthy control subjects (HC) during a week of daily living.Methods: 15 subjects with MS and 16 HC wore instrumented socks on each foot and one Opal sensor over the lower lumbar area for a week of daily activities for at least 8 h/day. Three gait bout definitions were based on the length of the pause between the end of one gait bout and start of another bout (1.25 s, 2.50 s, and 5.0 s pause). Area under the curve (AUC) was used to compare gait quality measures in MS versus HC.Results: Total number of gait bouts over the week were statistically significantly different across bout definitions, as expected. However, AUCs of gait quality measures (such as gait speed, stride length, stride time) discriminating people with MS from HC were not different despite the 3 bout definitions.Significance: Quality of gait measures that discriminate MS from HC during daily life are not influenced by the length of a gait bout, despite large differences in quantity of gait across bout definitions. Thus, gait quality measures in people with MS versus controls can be compared across studies using different gait bout definitions with pause lengths ≤5 s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the use of wearable technology to characterize gait disorders in daily life is increasing, there is no consensus on which specific gait bout length should be used to characterize gait. Clinical trialists using daily life gait quality as study outcomes need to understand how gait bout length affects the sensitivity and specificity of measures to discriminate pathological gait as well as the reliability of gait measures across gait bout lengths. We investigated whether Parkinson's disease (PD) affects how gait characteristics change as bout length changes, and how gait bout length affects the reliability and discriminative ability of gait measures to identify gait impairments in people with PD compared to neurotypical Old Adults (OA). We recruited 29 people with PD and 20 neurotypical OA of similar age for this study. Subjects wore 3 inertial sensors, one on each foot and one over the lumbar spine all day, for 7 days. To investigate which gait bout lengths should be included to extract gait measures, we determined the range of gait bout lengths available across all subjects. To investigate if the effect of bout length on each gait measure is similar or not between subjects with PD and OA, we used a growth curve analysis. For reliability and discriminative ability of each gait measure as a function of gait bout length, we used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and area under the curve (AUC), respectively. Ninety percent of subjects walked with a bout length of less than 53 strides during the week, and the majority (>50%) of gait bouts consisted of less than 12 strides. Although bout length affected all gait measures, the effects depended on the specific measure and sometimes differed for PD versus OA. Specifically, people with PD did not increase/decrease cadence and swing duration with bout length in the same way as OA. ICC and AUC characteristics tended to be larger for shorter than longer gait bouts. Our findings suggest that PD interferes with the scaling of cadence and swing duration with gait bout length. Whereas control subjects gradually increased cadence and decreased swing duration as bout length increased, participants with PD started with higher than normal cadence and shorter than normal stride duration for the smallest bouts, and cadence and stride duration changed little as bout length increased, so differences between PD and OA disappeared for the longer bout lengths. Gait measures extracted from shorter bouts are more common, more reliable, and more discriminative, suggesting that shorter gait bouts should be used to extract potential digital biomarkers for people with PD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]